|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It would appear that some kind soul came along and fixed it. Thank you!
I felt horrible about that very grateful someone could fix it, not fun being the queen of typos. I'd like to rate the state of forum moderation today as excellent! Whoever fix that thanks again for saving a bird from plucking out all my feather from inbarasment.
|
I wish we could search our posts based on who favorited them. Because there are a few posters out there who I would not want to favorite my posts.
The favoriting posts could be used as a guiding tool for moderation too. If an abusive poster favorites a post, it means they find the contents in tune with their abuse / dogwhistling. So, it likely needs reviewing, even if the poster did not want to provide fodder for the abusive poster.
Otherwise seemingly normal posts being favorited by some posters (especially by several and usually the same) raises flags to me.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wish we could search our posts based on who favorited them. Because there are a few posters out there who I would not want to favorite my posts.
The favoriting posts could be used as a guiding tool for moderation too. If an abusive poster favorites a post, it means they find the contents in tune with their abuse / dogwhistling. So, it likely needs reviewing, even if the poster did not want to provide fodder for the abusive poster.
Otherwise seemingly normal posts being favorited by some posters (especially by several and usually the same) raises flags to me.
I don't think "like/favorite policing" is really the way to go about things.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also not really sure it's a good idea since just because someone has favorited something dosent necessarily mean they actually like or agree with it. I mean in my case I sometimes use the favorites as a kind of bookmark so I can continue reading a conversation from where it left off. Or there may be something I want to refrence/ link to later and it's a lot easier trying to find it via my favorites tab rather than track it down across an entire forum.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
That’s an exception rather than the norm, especially since almost all browsers have bookmark functionality, so that’s just kinda trying to weasel out of responsibility more than anything.
Case in point, you had to specifically state aloud for everyone to see “hey, this is what I use favourites for, not their intended use”.
If you don’t like a post, don’t like it.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There’s been entirely too much softballing and excusing of horrible behavior lately, they don’t need you jumping to concoct a fantasy with no basis for them.
If I see someone eating pepperoni pizza all the time, I’m not going to make up a fantasy and declare they’re strength training to take on the conquering broccoli people.
I’m gonna think they just like pepperoni pizza.
Save the imagination for the game.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's a dividing line between healthy and unhealthy methods of moderating a community. "Create a class of undesirables and investigate any poster they show interest in" is way, way far over on the wrong side of that line.
If nothing else, if there is a known abusive poster, it begs the question of why have they simply not been banned rather than using them as the world's least effective bloodhounds.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If someone makes a bigoted post and you [general] like it, it’s not anyone other you and that person making a “undesirable”.
We’re not asking for a wall of shame, we’re pointing out how people have patterns of behavior and it shouldn’t take that person making multiple actual bigoted posts and/or threats before they’re finally, eventually, maybe banned.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If nothing else, if there is a known abusive poster, it begs the question of why have they simply not been banned rather than using them as the world's least effective bloodhounds.
Well two simple answers to that either A Whoevers moderating dosent see it as a bannable offence, or B there resources are spread so thin that they simply dont have the manpower/finances to do anything than a quick deleate
Frankly I suspect it's more of B
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Truth be told, I think most posters on the forums, especially on the recent threads, can pretty easily identify those who thrive on hate. If you have several of those favoriting one of your posts, it might be food for thought.
I always check who favorited my recent posts. But older ones pretty much become invisible.
It is always interesting to see who favorites what, because there is a pattern.
|
|
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also not really sure it's a good idea since just because someone has favorited something dosent necessarily mean they actually like or agree with it. I mean in my case I sometimes use the favorites as a kind of bookmark so I can continue reading a conversation from where it left off. Or there may be something I want to refrence/ link to later and it's a lot easier trying to find it via my favorites tab rather than track it down across an entire forum.
If the post you're favoriting to "bookmark" your place is racist, transphobic, homophobic, or offensive in other ways, why not just mark the one above that post, or the one below it?
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also not really sure it's a good idea since just because someone has favorited something dosent necessarily mean they actually like or agree with it. I mean in my case I sometimes use the favorites as a kind of bookmark so I can continue reading a conversation from where it left off. Or there may be something I want to refrence/ link to later and it's a lot easier trying to find it via my favorites tab rather than track it down across an entire forum.If the post you're favoriting to "bookmark" your place is racist, transphobic, homophobic, or offensive in other ways, why not just mark the one above that post, or the one below it?
Fair point I'll keep that in mind
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Truth be told, I think most posters on the forums, especially on the recent threads, can pretty easily identify those who thrive on hate. If you have several of those favoriting one of your posts, it might be food for thought.
I always check who favorited my recent posts. But older ones pretty much become invisible.
It is always interesting to see who favorites what, because there is a pattern.
I also check who favorites my posts. In game discussions, it is useful for seeing who might be on board with what you're saying and who isn't. In social justice discussions, it is useful for making sure I'm not doing an accidental dog whistle. Am cis white guy, so things aren't always obvious.
Favorites aren't some litmus test for who is good or bad. Just one more tool providing context, whether the discussion is swashbuckler damage or human rights.
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, it likely needs reviewing, even if the poster did not want to provide fodder for the abusive poster.
Full stop. That's where you lose me completely. If you judge my posts based on who agrees with them (and I'm pretty sure that I've been favorited several times by forum members you probably count in the abusive crowd), that is solely your problem, and I will not change my posting behaviour because of that.
If you have a specific problem with what I actually wrote, though, you're free to point that out to me, I'm more than willing to listen. But I'll certainly not let you paint me as a troll by proxy. Or rather, I couldn't care less if you try to.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Agreed and seconded and we’ll said WQ
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't understand why we need two threads to discuss "all of a poster's activity on the site is potential data for gauging their intent".
All Raven said was that the post might need another look. Not that it is definitely in need of moderation.
And if you are worried about how that basic idea might be "taken too far", maybe give us and the moderation a little more credit than that and stop assuming the worst of us. I don't want to be harsh here, but a lot of generally good-faith posters seem to be reading us in absolutely awful faith. We shouldn't have to repeatedly clarify points that were already clear.
When the stakes are low, always aim to interpret the best possible intent behind a given post. If we say, "who Favorites a post can be interesting data", maybe just assume we mean that, and not that we're talking about calling the Thought Police on everyone who badfavorites the wrongposts.
This preemptively hyperdefensive behavior actively makes me not want to come to you personally if you do post something questionable, because it makes me feel like you'd just argue and not listen to my concerns.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If someone makes a bigoted post and you [general] like it, it’s not anyone other you and that person making a “undesirable”.
We’re not asking for a wall of shame, we’re pointing out how people have patterns of behavior and it shouldn’t take that person making multiple actual bigoted posts and/or threats before they’re finally, eventually, maybe banned.
I think you're misunderstanding the scenario in question; it's the opposite that's being proposed.
I make a post, someone "undesirable" likes it, suddenly I'm implicated, basically.
Intent behind it doesn't really matter in this instance, respectfully, KC. The mere act of assuming extra scrutiny on a poster that happens to briefly align with the sensibilities of a specific poster whose approval is meant to fill you with shame is a problematic idea.
Systems are abusable; it's one of the sole uniting factors between all societies. Implementing very easily abusable systems because you trust the people who are currently in charge to sort it out (which is...talk about giving them extra work even in the best case, BTW) ain't it.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, so, let's apply this to a scenario. Say you're in an argument about trans rights. There's you, a blatant transphobe, some people new to the discussion asking questions, and some people critiquing the transphobe.
You make a post attempting to answer a question, and only the transphobe Favorites it.
That doesn't make you wonder if maybe you came off different from how you intended?
Again, all we've ever said here is that who Favorites a post is data. It's information. Sometimes it feeds into a larger picture or helps contextualize something. That's all. Literally nobody has suggested this as a hard-and-fast "rule" or "system" of any kind. The closest I think anyone has come was someone saying they personally feel worried they are being misunderstood if someone they disagree with is the only who to Like their argument. Because misunderstandings are incredibly common.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Favoriting to bookmark" is a very common practice on the play-by-post portion of this site and some people who use that regularly don't even think twice about using it in the other parts of the forum.
Great suggestion by Cori Marie about "favoriting as a bookmark" on a post around an offensive post or any likely to be deleted.
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
I will note that the one time in these arguments a Favorite actually contributed to changing my view of a person--rather than simply contributing to how I already felt about them with additional evidence--was when a poster I respected Favorited a post making transphobic attacks on another community member.
So I asked him why he'd done so. I assumed it was a misunderstanding--maybe a bookmark, or a misclick from the Flag option. Because a Favorite alone isn't going to change my opinion of someone, but it's data I want to contextualize.
I only changed my view of them when they explained, and I found their explanation petty and, considering the post in question was directly aiming abuse at a community member, kind of cold.
That's the only time. Generally, Favorites are just little pieces of data.
I don't believe you should judge someone based on every post they make for the same reason--because sometimes a single post is poorly written and unclear! But it's still data.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If someone makes a bigoted post and you [general] like it, it’s not anyone other you and that person making a “undesirable”.
We’re not asking for a wall of shame, we’re pointing out how people have patterns of behavior and it shouldn’t take that person making multiple actual bigoted posts and/or threats before they’re finally, eventually, maybe banned.
I think you're misunderstanding the scenario in question; it's the opposite that's being proposed.
I make a post, someone "undesirable" likes it, suddenly I'm implicated, basically.
Intent behind it doesn't really matter in this instance, respectfully, KC. The mere act of assuming extra scrutiny on a poster that happens to briefly align with the sensibilities of a specific poster whose approval is meant to fill you with shame is a problematic idea.
Systems are abusable; it's one of the sole uniting factors between all societies. Implementing very easily abusable systems because you trust the people who are currently in charge to sort it out (which is...talk about giving them extra work even in the best case, BTW) ain't it.
I absolutely did not mean extra scrutiny on a poster or any kind of guilty by association. I apologize deeply if it reads this way.
What I mean is that, if several pretty bigoted posters favorite my post, maybe I unknowingly dogwhistled their way or provided ammunition they will use to once again harass other posters, including people I like.
So, the contents of the post, maybe just the wording, might actually be more problematic than I was aware. And I might need to clarify my point so as not to give the bigots ammunition without meaning to.
This goes doubly or even more for someone like me who is both not living in the US and not a native speaker.
There is a member (I never saw any post of theirs I think) who very often favorites posts in the Pathfinder forums that are divisive or that attack Paizo / the devs ...
When I see that they have favorited one of my posts, I review it to understand why they favorited it and if I went too far. If my post still feels OK to me, I leave it untouched. And I take more care in my wording when posting on the same thread, just in case. Because I do not like conflict for the sake of it, nor bashing Paizo / the devs.
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
"If you favourite bigotry, it's a bad look" is so obviously, clearly a good principle, and it's very disturbing to hear every possible situation involving favourites being used to concoct alternative scenarios.
Favorite is a big + button, that says favourite. If you see an attack on someone, especially one using some bigoted mode of attack, AND you favourite it, it is the same as standing on the street and giving thumbs up to people waving hate speech signs.
No matter the reason, maybe consider it's a bad look, and will obviously come across as threatening to the people targetted by the hate speech.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
And if you are worried about how that basic idea might be "taken too far", maybe give us and the moderation a little more credit than that and stop assuming the worst of us.
Assuming that post was directed at me, the problem is that "us". Because that "us" is a pretty diverse group of people.
You get all the credit in the world from me, as I've seen you going out of your way trying to be fair and understanding time and time again. There are a select few posters that I hold in the same esteem.
Then there's the majority that I think are decent people I don't have any beef with. A lot of those are angry at the moment - understandably so - which severely limits their ability to stay fair towards "generally good-faith posters", especially in case of a disagreement. And it's sometimes hard not to feel accused as well, which is probably why the Raven caught me flat-footed with their post.
And then there's one or two pretty loud voices that I basically consider to be as much of a troll than any other troll out there.
I've been doing a lot of self-moderation in recent weeks so as not to add additional - unintentional - hurt to people that are already hurting, but I'll certainly not let the trolls (no matter from where they come) in any way influence what and how I post.
I absolutely did not mean extra scrutiny on a poster or any kind of guilty by association.
Apologies from me for getting so angry at your post. I was aware that you didn't mean it that way but still it rubbed me in a terribly wrong way. But that's on me, not you.
I think we should let this rest, especially since it's already being discussed in another thread. Ultimately, we've said our pieces and it's not really on topic anymore.
I know Storm may want to reply to us, and I don't feel right shutting this down and "getting the last word", even if I don't think this discussion is a very worthwhile use of anyone's time. If they want, they can feel free to quote my posts and move to the Just A Reminder thread, though I won't promise I'll engage just because I honestly still don't see the point in all this. :P
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
"If you favourite bigotry, it's a bad look" is so obviously, clearly a good principle, and it's very disturbing to hear every possible situation involving favourites being used to concoct alternative scenarios.
Favorite is a big + button, that says favourite. If you see an attack on someone, especially one using some bigoted mode of attack, AND you favourite it, it is the same as standing on the street and giving thumbs up to people waving hate speech signs.
No matter the reason, maybe consider it's a bad look, and will obviously come across as threatening to the people targetted by the hate speech.
I agree with all most everything you have said here but I can't agree that someone whose main use of the Paizo forums is Play by post and using favourites to make their place in the game somehow is concoct alternative scenario that is disturbing. It just points out that people come here for very different reasons. I come here for Starfinder sadly most weekends there's not even a single post in that section most of the time.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would appreciate us moving this to the other thread.
(sorry for dumping this argument on your thread, Rysky. :P)
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do really think, checking favorites aside, it's very important for moderators to keep tabs on individuals who get into trouble more than once. Like, a word document, even, just jotting down moderation notes or copying their deleted posts or keeping track of any observations anyone's made. That's quite possibly already done by the mods, of course.
I'm gonna say it--expecting more labor from mods who aren't being properly paid for it is not fair, but neither is expecting unpaid volunteers who are just trying to enjoy the forums to keep studious notes on the people insulting us. This is management's fault for not investing properly in forum moderation, and it's unacceptable.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the main thing everybody can agree on is that more moderators are needed, and have been needed for a long time. It's always been silly that there were only a couple of mods, and got even sillier as that dwindled from a couple, to one, to zero moderators and customer service was expected to work overtime to pick up the slack...even though they were ALREADY also understaffed and overworked.
The knock on effect of just having a proper moderation team who have the time and focus to step in and solve problems before they happen will be more impactful than any formalized systems ATM.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the better the moderation techniques, ultimately, the less work they'll have to do long-term to maintain things. Both an investment in actual well-paid moderation and improving the techniques are important, and they'll likely walk hand-in-hand. For instance, it'll be easier to keep a log of abusive posters when the moderators have more time to spend focused on moderation.
I do really think, checking favorites aside, it's very important for moderators to keep tabs on individuals who get into trouble more than once. Like, a word document, even, just jotting down moderation notes or copying their deleted posts or keeping track of any observations anyone's made. That's quite possibly already done by the mods, of course.
I know at least one Paizo employee that does that but he's responsible for managing a different part of the community.
Also, I don't think posts get permadeleted. I swear I saw one of my disappear and reappear because the moderator was kind of confused by the whole situation. And not that she didn't have reason to be confused but I had my reasons.
Software Architect
|
| 15 people marked this as a favorite. |
Our platform keeps plenty of records automatically about users - purchases, correspondence, customer service and moderator actions, etc. It's already very simple for customer service to add custom notes to a user for any reason whatsoever, including context surrounding previous moderator actions or context to inform future moderating.
Also, yes - in the overwhelming majority of cases, posts are not physically deleted. Rather, they're marked as logically deleted and made visible only to staff. That's part of the whole "records and context" thing above. Logical "soft" deletes are important for auditing purposes and retaining historical information, and are incredibly common in software development.
So in general, yes - the tools necessary for contextual, nuanced, and proactive moderation are already baked into our forum software, and have been for years. (Plus Smurfs!)
Thank you very much for sharing that information, Brian! I really appreciate all that being confirmed.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also, yes - in the overwhelming majority of cases, posts are not physically deleted. Rather, they're marked as logically deleted and made visible only to staff. That's part of the whole "records and context" thing above
I just want to remind everyone that The Mods See More Than You! There are many things that are removed before most people ever see it.
It is also a thankless and often distressing job. Hats off to everyone who does that kind of work!
Contributor
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
It just points out that people come here for very different reasons. I come here for Starfinder sadly most weekends there's not even a single post in that section most of the time.
Me too! We should work on that together. I really miss how Starfinder Wednesday provided us with fun community topics and really united the community in anticipation.
So... I would love for us to bring back the fun of more Starfinder discussions.
Hmm
EDITED to add: Thank you for the extra context and information, Brian!
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would like to come back to KC's original topic, the state of the Paizo forum moderation. I wholly agree that this state isn't great right now, particularly in this subforum. It is true that the situation over the past 2 months has been especially tricky. No one envies the moderators their jobs, which look like something impossible and awfully stressful.
That said, other posters have said that the problems in moderation aren't just these past 2 months: It's worse right now, but it doesn't mean things were fine before that. I can say, personally, that I have been much more of a lurker, and a big reason for that it that the forum is intimidating. Flame wars start very quickly, accusations fly freely, and it seems very difficult to get posters to use a softer tone, in spite of the moderators' appeals, and in spite of the great, courageous efforts by Hmm, KC and others to suggest a better way.
Here's a list of problems, as I see them:
1) Moderation removes inappropriate posts without an explanation attached to them. There's a moderator post, but it can be pages later, and that post doesn't connect to the conversation that violated the rules, since it's no longer visible. This creates multiple problems:
- It makes the thread incomprehensible to one who joins the conversation at a later time: The posts left over after a cleanup are often completely disconnected from each other and can feel rather random.
- It doesn't give closure to the people who were offended by a removed post. They have to re-read the thread to check that the post is no longer there.
- It does a poor job of educating posters about the rules. All we can see is a moderator post, usually to plead for people to do better in the future. The experience of the past 2 months is one of pleading to deaf ears.
- It's such a small consequence that it doesn't deter rule violators all that much.
2) The favorite mechanism contributes to the vitriol. Clicking on a + sign to mark a favorite is easy, and it can be done without much thinking. It's ambiguous: It's possible to like a part of a post but not the rest (not a good idea, but an easy mistake to make). The biggest problem is that the favorite marker quickly creates camps between posters. It does so without nuance and can quickly build up partisans' numbers instead. This makes it an inherently divisive tool.
3) The moderators rest on weekends. As they should! But unfortunately, this leaves a lot of time for fires to spread. I think it even creates a risk of encouraging pernicious behaviors.
I have no experience or competence in a moderator's job, so please take my suggestions with a grain of salt:
- I suggest editing inappropriate posts, rather than removing them outright. The text could be wholly replaced by something like "post moderated for X reason", with X taken from the list of disallowed post types. This would bring a degree of solace to offended posters, help educate newcomers to the thread, and mark a consequence for inappropriate posting. Another benefit: It relieves the moderator from the duty of writing a whole new moderator post every time.
- I believe the favorite mechanism should be curtailed. For example, it should be disabled in areas of the forums that have exhibited vitriolic tendencies over a recent period of time.
- By the same token, areas of the forums that are prone to excesses could be temporarily locked during weekends and holidays.
As an example of an effective moderation policy, I'd like to mention gitp.com. Of course, it's a very different outfit than Paizo. For starters, the site isn't used for direct sales (GitP is a one-man operation, sales are handled via a partner company). Also, all the moderators are volunteers. Still, I believe the audience is similar to Paizo's, so while their example isn't fully applicable, it's relevant at least in part. I suggest you check out their Rules of Posting. They're rigorous, comprehensive (the text is like 10x longer than Paizo's guidelines), well thought out, and clearly described (the infraction system, and how a poster can end up banned, is shown in a very transparent manner). They're also a lot more strict: For example, the restriction against political discussion is interpreted very broadly; responding to an offensive post is strongly discouraged, and can in itself warrant a penalty; vigilante modding is explicitly forbidden; etc., etc. This allows the moderators to put flame wars out quickly and thoroughly, and to reduce the odds of recurrence. Even if Paizo doesn't wish to apply rules as strong as these, I think they're worth a read, as a benchmark.
I hope this helps a little. If not, well, it was worth a shot.
I'd like to conclude by wishing all the very best to our moderators: You really don't deserve what's been happening here. Thank you for your courage and hard work in the service of others.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It just points out that people come here for very different reasons. I come here for Starfinder sadly most weekends there's not even a single post in that section most of the time.
Me too! We should work on that together. I really miss how Starfinder Wednesday provided us with fun community topics and really united the community in anticipation.
So... I would love for us to bring back the fun of more Starfinder discussions.
Hmm
EDITED to add: Thank you for the extra context and information, Brian!
Giving people something to talk about is in a way proactive moderation that helps build the community. It also looks better when new people to Starfinder come to the forums and see activity. I think Starfinder is way under-appreciated it's a great setting and has great playable races and classes. There is a fun thread on fashion in Starfinder, I actually took the feat just to help pick up on local fashion to help diplomacy checks, plus learning about the local fashion customs gives my Shiren character more opportunity to make choices about what to wear, because for a Shiren every choice is a gift to celebrate!
A lot of the talk here has been about reactive moderation and there will always be a need for that at times, but I'm wondering what can be done proactively too.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I was away most of the last few days at a convention and my responsive commentary got lengthy. Personally, I find extremely long, wordy threads that take up multiple screen lengths of space make a thread unwieldy, so I feel compelled to put it behind a spoiler just to make it easier to navigate.
Complaints that the moderation team is "biased"
Except some, or all, or perhaps just one, no way of knowing, actually has demonstrated numerous times that they are in fact unreasonably bias and scrubbing content that does not violate any published forum rules. We know this to be true because there are numerous users who have had content scrubbed or been suspended without any idea why and Paizo has been either unable or unwilling to provide any explanation.
Further, I find it inappropriate for a common user, no better, no worse, than any other user to create a thread knowing it is likely to garner a large audience and then try to control said discussion by telling us what we can/not talk about. Sorry, this is a public forum, not your own private page.
That being said, much of the rest of the post I can understand and support even if I disagree with some of the proposals to how conditions could/should be improved.
I can't believe they had the gall to fire her.
To be fair, and by your own admission, we really don't know why Sara Marie was fired or what kind of disciplinary history she may have had. We cannot draw much from any commentary by Paizo because they are not legally allowed to discuss those kinds of employment issues and we cannot really blindly take anything Sara Marie may have said since it is an incredibly rare person who is unbiased when representing their own history. I am not suggesting that she did something wrong, again we have no proof she did, but it is much more likely than not that she would describe herself as a better employee than the boss that fired her would. That being said, Paizo has done nothing to demonstrate any good faith when it comes to dealing with staff, so it would not surprise me if they were acting unreasonable, perhaps even criminally, when they cut her loose. The point is, I don't really think we should be making any value judgement about this particular topic without having more and reliable information.
I think knowing why one of your posts gets removed is very important for learning to post better. I wish we had a banned post tab in the Private message section of our My Account page where we could see just our own banned post. It's hard to learn from the past or correct misunderstandings when you can't see it.
This is a very interesting idea. It allow the user to see precisely what was scrubbed and the moderator/s could place a brief note why they felt it was inappropriate and/or what forum rule it violated. Also, it would stand as a rolling history so when a suspension and/or ban was handed down, they would have a history of repeat offenses as justification and the user could not cry foul. Also, also, it would serve as a record in case of a moderator overstepping the application of the rules. A user could appeal, perhaps to a committee of management or something and if they felt the moderator's action was wrong, they could easily restore the post, reinstate the user, or whatever. Certainly something to consider.
I always check who favorited my recent posts. But older ones pretty much become invisible.
I might check my favorites on the rare occasion I feel I said something profound or especially funny and I want to see how many people liked it. Otherwise, I really don't care who favorites what I say and I look at other folk's favorites even less frequently than my own.
“I make a post, someone "undesirable" likes it, suddenly I'm implicated, basically.”
A bogeyman you concocted with no basis, aka a slippery slope fallacy.
I beg to differ. I may/not be the one you referenced up thread, but in any case, I know I favorited a thread for a completely unrelated reason than because I supported or liked the content. I provided my reasoning openly and firmly. Some chose to consider it weak or disagree with the reasoning. That's fine. I don't expect everyone to agree with nor believe everything I say. Its human nature to be suspicious of people you don't really know. Regardless, it DOES demonstrate there is a non-zero rate of occurrence for that suggested bogeyman.
So in general, yes - the tools necessary for contextual, nuanced, and proactive moderation are already baked into our forum software, and have been for years. (Plus Smurfs!)
So if the forums have a much more powerful system available to assist with moderation and related subjects like favoriting posts, etc. why haven't they ever been activated? And if they are currently available, why don't they appear to be used?
EDIT--hmmm, suddenly none of my avatars appear, only a smurf. Wonder what that means?
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not entirely. I find there is a distinct similarity between an "undesirable" favoriting* a post thus drawing some level of disparity to the original poster, and someone favoriting* a post made by a known "undesirable." In either case, the suggestion is, whether rightful or wrongfully, that the "innocent" user could be tagged as an undesirable because of that connection.
I certainly agree it is unlikely to happen, though the rate of it happening will be non-zero since we already have at least one case where it did. I am not suggesting that we need to worry about those likely extremely corner cases, though some will argue they will occur much more often than they really will, thus the slipper slop fallacy. I am merely disagreeing with your suggestion that it has "no basis."
*spellcheck really doesn't like that word :-)